The word "field" is a racial slur now.

[durangodawood]

Certain rooms of the house have had their names banned lately. Realtors no longer refer to the master bedroom anymore. "Master" is supposedly another trigger word.
I'm surprised "trigger" hasn't been banned yet. Brings to mind images of gun violence.

"Dining room" is classist.
"Living room" excludes departed ancestors.
"Closet" reminds gay people of before they could come out.

 

[rambot]

It is well meaning, but clueless. I don't even have to go back five generations: I've worked in fields growing up. It may come a shock to some, but field work is a farming thing, not a racial one.

My guess is with it being a practicum and not getting paid, the "slave" implications are stronger.

Agreed though. Seems unnecessary.

 

[Ana the Ist]

MSN

I'll bet not a single one of those complaining employees had ever worked in a field.

But I'll also bet 99% of all of us have an ancestor within the last 5 generations who did work in some kind of field.

When I was a teenager, I worked in someone else's field one day...kind of an experiment to see what "chopping cotton" was like. If I ever needed a reason to get a college degree, that one day chopping cotton provided all the reason I'd ever need. I did, however, do a lot of outdoor work for my grandfather on his property, so I was not a stranger to hard work under a hot sun.

I'm not embarrassed by the fact that my ancestors worked in fields, first those of slaveowners, then fields of their own. Certainly, the word "field" isn't going to "trigger" me.

This horse manure has long been absurd.

This is a result of making "black studies" a college major.

It's a big problem. Have you seen the vegan debate viral video?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Field is on the chopping block? Seriously? In all of its denotations?

What's next? The term "discipline" will be considered a form of aggressive coercion? Sheesh!

I suppose by that logic, "self-control" goes next .......................................................

Your post reminds me of my favorite activist scholar concept....

"Privilege preserving epistemic pushback"

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Dining room" is classist.

Are certain classes deprived of dinner?

Let them eat brunch.

"Living room" excludes departed ancestors.

What doesn't?

"Closet" reminds gay people of before they could come out.

Shouldn't they? The closet has to be an uncomfortable space to live.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your post reminds me of my favorite activist scholar concept....

"Privilege preserving epistemic pushback"

Me, privileged?

 

[rjs330]

Words and definitions really do matter. Twice in this thread.

It's a bit silly that "field" could be considered anti-black or anti-immigrant. In a language where words often have multiple meanings, Merriam-Webster lists 10 primary with 16 secondary definitions for the noun "field", with only one of those being agricultural related. Context matters as several of those are related to professional activities as well. It seems to me that their employees have to be looking for offense in order to claim that other uses of field would have any connotations of slavery.

Definition of FIELD

an open land area free of woods and buildings; an area of land marked by the presence of particular objects or features; an area of cleared enclosed land used for cultivation or pasture… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

However, "slur" also has a definition and the article never implied that the people complaining saw "field" as word intended to intentionally insult or disparage them. From reading the whole article I would sum it up as the use of the word is unintentionally triggering to them (which does seem to me to be a victim mentality they would be best served to grow past). Regardless, the title of the thread doesn't need to use a word (slur) that overstates the objections of those who complained. It is kind of the opposite end of the same issue TBH.

We have got to stop catering to those that are triggered by non-offensive or demeaning language. There are words whose very intent is to be offensive. But the removal of common words that are not offensive from the language is catering to the easily offended, the mentally and emotionally weak. It's dumb. I can't believe we are catering to these people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Me, privileged?

Oh no....I'd never level such an awful accusation at someone during a civil discussion online. I'm certain you've genuinely achieved some of your success.

No, the term is an accusation of.....wait for it....bigotry and prejudice. These various activist ideologies tend to use "standpoint epistemology" and like most postmodernists or social constructivists....they run into trouble during debates and discussions. The argument over the definition of terms has to end at some point or has to be set aside for the debate or discussion to move forward and anyone who keeps insisting upon an objective reality or requesting evidence of claims will likely see the concept used against them.


Standpoint epistemology is exactly what it sounds like...personal anecdotes....or "lived experience".

 

[rjs330]

Let them eat brunch.

Or otherwise known as second breakfast. But what about lunch, dinner and supper?

 

[rjs330]

Me, privileged?

You have no idea how privileged you are.

 

[durangodawood]

We have got to stop catering to those that are triggered by non-offensive or demeaning language. There are words whose very intent is to be offensive. But the removal of common words that are not offensive from the language is catering to the easily offended, the mentally and emotionally weak. It's dumb. I can't believe we are catering to these people.

But are "we" really doing that?

Or are we elevating every silly little side show into prominence in order to stoke our culture wars fires and keep ourselves agitated?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh no....I'd never level such an awful accusation at someone during a civil discussion online. I'm certain you've genuinely achieved some of your success.

No, the term is an accusation of.....wait for it....bigotry and prejudice. These various activist ideologies tend to use "standpoint epistemology" and like most postmodernists or social constructivists....they run into trouble during debates and discussions. The argument over the definition of terms has to end at some point or has to be set aside for the debate or discussion to move forward and anyone who keeps insisting upon an objective reality or requesting evidence of claims will likely see the concept used against them.


Standpoint epistemology is exactly what it sounds like...personal anecdotes....or "lived experience".

I see what you mean. Well, it sounds like we're more or less in agreement on that, mainly because in my "lived experience" while at the university working through my Master's, they tried to pound the whole "White Privilege" theme into and through their entire curriculum.

So, yeah. I get it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You have no idea how privileged you are.

Actually, I do. But at the same time, I'm going to analytically qualify anyone's specific assertions as to what "privilege" is and as to how we discern the label (read: denotation) we construct of it and then attempt to compel everyone else to recognize and use.

If someone wants to say, "Gee, 2PhiloVoid, you're white and you don't know what it is to be scorned, badgered, dismissed, threatened, and/or beaten down because of some cultural or biological difference that comes along with just being born Jewish, or of African descent, or gay," then I'd say, sure. Maybe. Maybe you're right! But this would be a very highly narrow use of the term, one that's almost by necessity forced into the sieve that comes with making something like Karl Marx's "Conflict Theory" the prime source of definition for privilege.

By golly, let's not pretend though that my having to literally pull myself up by my own boot-straps in life and having to make my own way from out of a highly dysfunctional, naive, half-educated, financially and emotionally depleated lower middle-class white family is somehow an example of "privilege." It's not.

But I get it: I also didn't have to live with epidemic levels of racial prejudice or severe social stigmatization raining down upon me like hammers every waking day of my life. For that, yes, I consider myself blessed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I see what you mean. Well, it sounds like we're more or less in agreement on that, mainly because in my "lived experience" while at the university working through my Master's, they tried to pound the whole "White Privilege" theme into and through their entire curriculum.

So, yeah. I get it.

Here's how standpoint epistemology gets around the trouble of having to include viewpoints contradictory to the ideology (well, one of the ways)....

If you belong to a privileged identity....your beliefs, lived experiences, viewpoints, opinions, etc all lose value in any discussion. The most privileged of the privileged (straight white Christian men) can be and should be dismissed entirely from any conversation or discussion of any importance. You can even see this happening to gay white men, white women and lesbisn white women, etc....and depending upon context...this can happen to nearly any identity group based on context.

Of course, it looks pretty wild to the everyday people who have never looked into this stuff and wouldn't have any clue what epistemology even means. That's why a neophyte who doesn't read any theory like Matt Walsh for example can go around asking professors and other various experts "what is a woman?" and the answers he gets sound ludicrous to about 90-95% of the population.

 

[RDKirk]

But are "we" really doing that?

Or are we elevating every silly little side show into prominence in order to stoke our culture wars fires and keep ourselves agitated?

When it becomes an order for a state government, it's gotten past "side show."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here's how standpoint epistemology gets around the trouble of having to include viewpoints contradictory to the ideology (well, one of the ways)....

If you belong to a privileged identity....your beliefs, lived experiences, viewpoints, opinions, etc all lose value in any discussion. The most privileged of the privileged (straight white Christian men) can be and should be dismissed entirely from any conversation or discussion of any importance. You can even see this happening to gay white men, white women and lesbisn white women, etc....and depending upon context...this can happen to nearly any identity group based on context.

Of course, it looks pretty wild to the everyday people who have never looked into this stuff and wouldn't have any clue what epistemology even means. That's why a neophyte who doesn't read any theory like Matt Walsh for example can go around asking professors and other various experts "what is a woman?" and the answers he gets sound ludicrous to about 90-95% of the population.

I'm so glad I'm not guilty of any of this, either way ... However, while I'm not big on Feminist theory, I'm not fully against all aspects of it. It can get interesting points by which to engage, survey, and deliberate over its various "waves."

In considering the make-up of "Privilege preserving epistemic pushback," I thought the following article was useful. I'm sure others from other vantage points could be brought up as well:

Privilege-Preserving Epistemic Pushback

This entry in 'Translations from the Wokish' is an explanation of the term "Privilege-Preserving Epistemic Pushback."

newdiscourses.com

 

[Aldebaran]

But are "we" really doing that?

Or are we elevating every silly little side show into prominence in order to stoke our culture wars fires and keep ourselves agitated?

We're just brining their silliness into the light to expose how ridiculous they can be, and reveal their true nature. Remember, the same people who want to ban or redefine common words are the same ones who push other "woke" agenda items. Reveal them for who they really are, and their entire agenda starts crumbling.

 

[Pommer]

We're just brining their silliness into the light to expose how ridiculous they can be, and reveal their true nature. Remember, the same people who want to ban or redefine common words are the same ones who push other "woke" agenda items. Reveal them for who they really are, and their entire agenda starts crumbling.

Yes, the language will change with the society as it grows (or shrinks) to be more (or less) tolerant of “new things”. This has happened in every generation and is “normal”.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, the language will change with the society as it grows (or shrinks) to be more (or less) tolerant of “new things”. This has happened in every generation and is “normal”.

It's only normal when it happens naturally. Being forced to use certain words that don't make sense by people who will take your job, or censor you on social media because you're not being woke "enough" is not natural.

 

[Pommer]

It's only normal when it happens naturally. Being forced to use certain words that don't make sense by people who will take your job, or censor you on social media because you're not being woke "enough" is not natural.

Neither are kidney transplants.

All words are “made up”; there’s no “word mine” where we find “new words”. Therefore defining and redefining them is an on-going process (that you seem to like to complain about).